From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161312AbWGJDKZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Jul 2006 23:10:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161314AbWGJDKZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Jul 2006 23:10:25 -0400 Received: from pasmtpb.tele.dk ([80.160.77.98]:46543 "EHLO pasmtp.tele.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161312AbWGJDKZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Jul 2006 23:10:25 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 05:10:08 +0200 From: Sam Ravnborg To: Robin Getz Cc: kai@germaschewski.name, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: ./scripts/kallsyms.c question Message-ID: <20060710031008.GA5381@mars.ravnborg.org> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20060709193540.01ec8370@ptg1.spd.analog.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060709193540.01ec8370@ptg1.spd.analog.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 10:26:39PM -0400, Robin Getz wrote: > The application kallsyms generate assembler source containing symbol > information, where "symbol information" is in these pre-defined names: > > _stext, _etext, _sinittext, _einittext, _sextratext, _eextratext > > I am working with a processor (Blackfin) which uses these plus two others > _stext_l1, and _etext_l1. > > I can add these in the same fashion as the existing (see below), but was > wondering if this shouldn't be re-structured with a struct/loop rather than > the existing n lines of if/else? Keep the existing if/else - it is still readable. But please add a comment describing that it is blackfin that requires these two odd sections. Sam